Danny Milosavljevic <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi Ricardo, > > On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 20:09:26 +0200 > Ricardo Wurmus <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Danny Milosavljevic <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 12:58:42 +0200 >> > Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> (If anyone knows how to get ‘a.syntax-symbol’ CSS different from just >> >> ‘a’, I’m all ears!) >> […] >> > a.syntax-symbol { >> > color: red; >> > } >> > a:not(.syntax-symbol) { >> > background-color: blue; >> > } >> >> The first definition would suffice if it came after any style definition >> for just “a”. > > Yeah, but the behavior would be different. > > I thought Ludo meant that he wanted the rules for just "a" not to apply to > "a.syntax-symbol". With your version the rules for just "a" and the ones > for "a.syntax-symbol" would totally both apply to "a.syntax-symbol"s. > > In my version, the "with class" text doesn't have a blue background. > In yours, it would have. > > (I'd agree that it's often overkill) Oh, thanks for the clarification. I must have misunderstood Ludo’s request. -- Ricardo
